[torrent] Breakfast 5/14/05 Philadelphia, PA

[Todd]

and just how much does tea cost in China??? :lol:

[davepeck]

I\'m betting most people don\'t care.

fixed.

[Whineberg]

Just as much as it does here (tea).

[kindm's]

I would say that the test you purpose is flawed. Once I resample to 16Bit and dither to 44.1 all of the original info would be lost. So resaving that file back to 24 Bit will do noting but increase the file size.(EDITED To ADD: MAtt I really need to read more carefully before I post. I see your reasoning to resave back to 24Bit after the dither so that in a side by side the file sizes would be the same and people wouldnt be able to just look at the file size to determine)

What would be a fair test would be to take the 24 Bit master and add gain ad then save 1 file at 24Bit and the other at 16 bit and do a blind test. But there are also some other serious considerations. Most folks will not have a playback system capable of really reproducing the 16Bits let alone 24.

If people are listening to shows through their crappy ass computer speakers than it really isnt going to be that dramatic of an improvement. If you move up to a higher class of playback it is very much like night and day. Bass response becomes much tighter and rounder in 24 Bits.


I agree that MOST people won\'t care, hence the popularity of lossy formats like MP3 and everybody loves their Ipods etc. But I don\'t tape for other people. I tape for ME! and my ears can easily hear the difference in a side by side A/B comp. I do it all the time. I have the 16Bit files and te 24Bit on my harddrive and can quickly go back and forth

I am not knocking recordings done at 16/44.1 or 16/48. I used to and still tape at those resolutions when the laptop is not practical or if I have the backup rig etc. It just comes down to if I can record a show in higher resolution than why not ? you can never go back in time and re-record a live show. So if I am gonna do it why not do it at the highest possible quality that  I can. I can always take away, you can never add

I dont know what kind of system you guys use but this is my hobby (taping / semi-audiophile) so thats why I am as passionate about it as I am. And IMHO once you get used to listening to music with beter quality EQ, or sources or whatever it is almost impossible to go back. It is like when you have a really good playback system and then you go to a friends house and hear their better system. From that day on you can hear all of the short-comings in your playback becasue your brain heard it on the other system and is looking for that subtle sound etc.

1 example that I can think of that really hammers the point home is this. On Pink Floyds Dark Side of the Moon, during Great big Gig in the Sky the female vocalist towards the end of the tune says "If you can hear me whispering your dying." On most average playback systems this is muddled and almost in-audible. On a HQ playback system it is clear as day. Same analogy holds true in 24Bit IMO. On the Beardslee castle recording I just made, Jordan is playing a solo or about to play a solo and he just ever so slightly tickles the keys at 1 point (very dramatic I thought for some weird reason) and again it is sooo crystal clear on the 24 Bit it is exactly where it should be in 3D. On the 16Bit it isnt as clear you really have to concentrate to hear it.

[Spacey]

What kind of setup is required for playing 24 bit. I am always one for superior quality. I would rather hear everything as clear as possible.

[davepeck]

What kind of setup is required for playing 24 bit. I am always one for superior quality. I would rather hear everything as clear as possible.

What is required to listen to/ burn 24-bit?

1. Listen from your computer with a 24bit capable soundcard.
2. Burn DVD-Audio using Disc Welder Bronze (Steel or Chrome), Wave Lab 5, etc.  You\'ll need a DVD-A capable player.  Supports any sample rate.
3. Burn DVD-Video using http://www.audio-dvd-creator.com, or similar.  Playback on any DVD player.  DVD-Video only supports 24/48 and 24/96 in 2-channel stereo.

[Spacey]

Perhaps, you can translate this into English?

[mvallo]

I\'m betting most people don\'t care.

fixed.

You\'re mis-quoting me! - - Dave gets a time out for abusing his administrative privileges...


fixed...  

[kindm's]

English:

If you have a DVD player capabale of DVD-A playback then you can already listen to 24Bit audio in this format. If you do not have a DVD-A capable dvd player aother option is if you computers soundcard can support 24Bit playback.

I have a 24Bit/192 capable ESI Waveterminal 192x soundcard. I run 1/4"-> RCA to my Marantz AMP for playback. Although I do listen on my PC desktop speakers soetimes as well

[mvallo]

II see your reasoning to resave back to 24Bit after the dither so that in a side by side the file sizes would be the same and people wouldnt be able to just look at the file size to determine).

correct.

What would be a fair test would be to take the 24 Bit master and add gain ad then save 1 file at 24Bit and the other at 16 bit and do a blind test. But there are also some other serious considerations. Most folks will not have a playback system capable of really reproducing the 16Bits let alone 24.

If we add gain (say12db) to the 24bit master, the samples from 0 to -12db would be clipped/distorted; not a valid test.  Adding a 16bit dither (bit reduction) to a 24bit file is the corect method and comparing the new file with the original 24bit is the correct method to compare the two.

If people are listening to shows through their crappy ass computer speakers than it really isnt going to be that dramatic of an improvement. If you move up to a higher class of playback it is very much like night and day. Bass response becomes much tighter and rounder in 24 Bits.).

I agree, crappy speakers, amps and a/d converter with poor signal to noise ratios make it impossible to hear the differences.  The problem I have is I have very good speakers/headphones and soundcard and I am still guessing which is the 24bit vs. 16bit recording.   I just disagree that it is night and day because most people, even on the best playback system, can\'t get it right consistently.

1 example that I can think of that really hammers the point home is this. On Pink Floyds Dark Side of the Moon, during Great big Gig in the Sky the female vocalist towards the end of the tune says "If you can hear me whispering your dying." On most average playback systems this is muddled and almost in-audible. On a HQ playback system it is clear as day.

you\'re just comparing good vs. bad playback system.

Same analogy holds true in 24Bit IMO. On the Beardslee castle recording I just made, Jordan is playing a solo or about to play a solo and he just ever so slightly tickles the keys at 1 point (very dramatic I thought for some weird reason) and again it is sooo crystal clear on the 24 Bit it is exactly where it should be in 3D. On the 16Bit it isnt as clear you really have to concentrate to hear it.

let me know what track #/ time and I will set up blind A/B test using a correct dither method.

[kindm's]

"If we add gain (say12db) to the 24bit master, the samples from 0 to -12db would be clipped/distorted; not a valid test. Adding a 16bit dither (bit reduction) to a 24bit file is the corect method and comparing the new file with the original 24bit is the correct method to compare the two."


We are saying the samething just differently.

I mean if you want to do an A/B thats cool but I dont need to be convinced.  I know what I hear. If you cannot tell the difference thats cool, it doesn\'t seem that it matters to you 1 way or the other. Like I said it isn\'t like I refuse to listen to 16Bit stuff or something a ripping recording is a ripping recording. And if most folks cant tell the difference again thats OK to. Most folks cant tell the difference from MP3\'s to PCM or they dont care.

My analogy about the playback systems was just trying to describe what i was talking about in a broader context. Relating it to something a lot of folks can relate to (Dark Side of the Moon). The clarity of subtle nuances in the recordings and how it relates to the overall sound experience.

I mean I am not the only person out there that believes it. If it wasnt as dramtic as I was tlaking about there would be no need for Bit Depth increase since DAT (16Bit/48khz).

Listen to the Diana Krall DVD-A and tell me you dont hear a difference. The science is the same

Something also occurred to me in what is at play here.

We are comapring the exact same original source. The original source was captured at 24Bit and then this same recording was dithered and resampled after the fact using 1 of the better dithering algorythms U2hvrr. So if the software is doing what it is supposed to the differences between these 2 files is going to be minimal. But take a source captured at 16/44.1 and 1 captured at 24/96 or whatever and I think you will hear the differences a lot more readily.

[CraigT]

You aren\'t the only one - I also listen primarily to 24bit sources because I enjoy the added resolution and can tell the difference.  Sometimes its obvious, sometimes not so much - depends on what you\'re recording.  I also do some mid/side recording and the m/s>stereo mixdown definitely benefits from the higher bitrate.  Same thing goes for any processing like EQ.  I\'ve been recording 24bit since 2001, maybe early 2002, and have just started to torrent 24bit sources since the "user base" has finally begun to grow.

The argument for 96k and higher sampling isn\'t as significant.  I think the main issue is that PCM decoding typically uses a very sharp low-pass filter to eliminate some high frequency nasties and at 96k its threshold is pushed way out of audible range.  There are also some arguments that involve spacial cues, imaging, etc.

[kindm's]

CraigT what else do you tape ? I have offered to others before as well but if you ever want to trade some 24Bit stuff let me know. I have a bunch of stuff on HDD right now (finally getting around to burning them to DVD)

[CraigT]

search "taraszki" on bt.etree.org and you\'ll see a bunch of my recordings.

this is one of the best sounding:
http://www.archive.org/audio/etree-details-db.php?id=26567

[Spacey]

English:

If you have a DVD player capabale of DVD-A playback then you can already listen to 24Bit audio in this format. If you do not have a DVD-A capable dvd player aother option is if you computers soundcard can support 24Bit playback.

I have a 24Bit/192 capable ESI Waveterminal 192x soundcard. I run 1/4"-> RCA to my Marantz AMP for playback. Although I do listen on my PC desktop speakers soetimes as well

I missed this when you posted it earlier. I understand this mumbo-jumbo much more clearer now. I will have to check into what my DVD player is capable of. Thanks you for the translation Kind Sir.